We’re also to some extent innately combative creatures. People will say “Oh, I showed people the facts and they still didn’t change their mind. They’re just idiots stuck in their ways.” Okay, cool. When you tried to present these facts, did you do it in such a way as to treat them courteously or as an equal, or did you do it in such a way that you got to feel like you were dunking on them rhetorically? Because it’s not as simple as presenting someone with facts. It’s doing so in a way that doesn’t make it feel like you’re trying to establish some kind of superiority over them. Because then they’re not presenting facts to you, they’re just attacking you and your position. And these are very different things, conceptually and emotionally.

Valve has been compared to Lord of the Flies because of its corporate structure by multiple people who worked for them. The company has an internal ranking system that determines compensation. It’s also one of the least diverse workplaces in its industry, being overwhelmingly white and male.

https://www.pcgamer.com/valves-unusual-corporate-structure-causes-its-problems-report-suggests/ https://www.pcgamer.com/ex-valve-employee-describes-ruthless-industry-politics/

So, while I’m glad that Gabe was nice to one of his direct reports, the reality is that the president of the company being nice to one specific person doesn’t make the company good or ethically ran.

Lemmy: Corporations are terrible. None of them have your back. They’re all just out to make money and the only reason they pay their employees is because slavery is illegal.

Also Lemmy: Step on me harder, Daddy Gaben!

Shit has some real Tesla-bro circa 2013 energy.

True then; true now. People who asskiss Valve (and Gaben by extension) are victims of years of effective marketing. Valve is as greedy and duplicitous as any other corporation. You’re just looking at it through rose colored glasses because it’s the primary mechanism by which you access your hobby.

This tweet is actually a fantastic learning tool in the context of formal argumentation. One of the best ways of refuting a clearly dubious argument is analyzing and rejecting its foundational premises. The foundational premise of this person’s conjecture about Twitter’s worth is that each Tweet is worth a dollar. Except, he has no evidence to come close to supporting that, and the immaterial nature of a tweet combined with the sheer insane volume of them likely suggests the opposite: the average tweet is almost certainly far closer to being completely worthless. Some might be worth a lot, such as a tweet made by a famous person, but that’s contextual to advertising costs and user volume.

Elon had gotten away with blatant market manipulation so much he made the ultimate mistake: buying into his own bullshit. I’m absolutely convinced he didn’t want to buy Twitter. He wanted to pump and dump. People think there’s about to be a buyout so the price goes up in anticipation. He then shorts the stock with the plan of very publicly backing out of the deal and walks away with a couple hundred million. But for the first time ever he goes just too damn far and winds up in a scenario where he can be legally compelled to purchase the company. Now he’s forced to eat shit and is saddled with what I can only imagine is the corporate equivalent of a pig in a poke.

Intelligent design is a broad, vague, and intensely mutable concept. It isn’t helped by the fact that there’s multiple kinds, with the pseudoscientific kind touted by the religious right in America and the more generic, very fucking old “teleological argument” which is also intelligent design at its core. To give a specific example of intelligent design philosophy that isn’t directly tied to a belief in a deity as an active participant, you can look at the deists, who believed that the universe’s fundamental laws were engineered by a kind of “clock maker” deity who left the universe running under its own principles but doesn’t have a direct, guiding hand in individual events. This is still a form of “intelligent design” and closely corresponds to simulation theory. At this point, you are redefining terms to suite your argument. Also, you can’t really say the world is or is not intelligently designed, as you have no evidence for either. The only truly “logical” position to hold for any of this is straight agnosticism.

This argument conflates belief with religious practice. The core similarity of both beliefs is that the universe is intelligently designed. And you can believe in the idea of a God without participating in any kind of formal religious practice. That “most” religious belief is wrapped up in a particular religious tradition is ancillary.

If you run Ubuntu on a production server, you better having snapd disabled.

I prefer to refer to him as “failed comedian Stephen Crowder.”

The ideological signifying here, though, is squarely situated within the language of American politics. All Lives Matter was a reactionary counter to Black Lives Matter, a distinctly American political movement. Similarly, “both sides suck” is something which has been repeated ad nauseam about American politics. As such, the meme suggests itself that it’s about American politics. At least that’s how I’m reading it. If the OP meant it to be about Israel and Palestine, I think they could have framed it better.

This is an ancient opinion. People have been complaining about America’s two party system for literal centuries.

Ah, good catch.

For newer python people, they see return a or b and typically think it returns a boolean if either is True. Nope. Returns a if a is truthy and then checks if b is truthy. If neither are truthy, it returns b.

I don’t really understand the appeal of this. What command line software is there on MacOS that there isn’t an adequate equivalent to on Linux?

Oh, okay, youtube drama. Thank you for letting me know it’s not something worth caring about, kind stranger.

Being gay.

So you wouldn’t laugh at someone wearing clown makeup but otherwise acting serious?

I would assume they worked as a clown or something similar and were on their break. Also, clowns aren’t funny.

I say fair game to anyone that intentionally alters their appearance in a stupid way.

What you consider to be stupid is subjective. But you’re free to laugh at people all you want. Just like how other people can think you’re not a very good person for doing so.

To be fair, if we die, capitalism goes with us.

I never specified her forehead. And those things you mentioned also constitute a person’s appearance. I don’t care what her makeup or hair is like. I would never make fun of someone for those things.